§ Viscount Melbourne moved the third reading of the Marriages Bill.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhad called the attention of their Lordships a few evenings back to the case of a refusal of a certificate or licence by the superintendent-registrar. He now moved a clause giving an appeal to the registrar-general.
§ Motion agreed to.
Lord Plunkettwished to call their Lordships' attention to the 43rd Clause. It provided, that if any person, knowingly or wilfully, after the first day of March next, were married in any place other than a church or chapel, or such office as pointed out by the Act, or without due notice to the superintendent-registrar, where such notice was necessary, or without a notice of certificate duly issued, or without a licence, or in the absence of the registrar or superintendent-registrar, where his presence was necessary, such marriage should be null and void. Here were no less than five provisions, any one of which would annul the marriage, and leave the issue to all the consequences of such a misfortune. He proposed, therefore, to limit at least the time within which proceedings were to be taken to annul such marriage to one year from its solemnisation —a provision which would be in accordance with the 9th George 2nd.
Lord Ellenboroughthought the amendement of the noble and learned Lord was open to great objections. It would raise up again voidable marriages, to which their Lordships had expressed a strong repugnance, and last year had passed a Bill whereby such marriages were declared for the future void.
§ Amendment negatived. Bill read a third time.
§ On the question that the Bill do pass,
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that not 903 having been present at the second reading of this Bill, he had not had an opportunity of stating his opinion of the measure, but he could not help expressing his wish that it had received fuller consideration than it had even during the several nights it had been under discussion. However, the Bill had been assented to by so great a majority of their Lordships, that any expectation that he might have entertained that they might have been induced to take a different view of the measure would probably have been disappointed. He could certainly have very much wished to have addressed them upon the question, and to have pointed out the defects of the Bill, but it would be unwarrantable and unpardonable in him to trespass upon their Lordships' indulgence, even if they were disposed to extend it to him, by stating in detail his objections now. He should, therefore, satisfy his sense of duty by saying "not content" to the passing of the Bill, and in doing so he must express his apprehension, that a full consideration of the measure would show, that its effects and consequences would be different from those which their Lordships had anticipated, and which he feared they would have reason to lament.
§ Bill passed.